"We find when you focus on helping people live an easier more robust life, the environment wins too," says Susan Anderson, the director of the city's bureau of planning and sustainability."

Except for that whole Hayden Island thing, and that South Waterfront thing, and that river Superfund site thing, and that Big Pipe thing, and that increasing tapping of groundwater to meet rising demand thing, that disappearing salmon thing, that increasing water pollution thing, that declining air quality thing, that high unemployment thing, that increasing gang violence thing, that running out of land so we grab farmland instead thing, that unaffordable housing thing, that rising poverty thing, that disappearing middle class thing...

You know, other than that, it really has been a win-win for people and the environment.

Green Susan's slathering of information to the chorus publication of "Smarter Cities" is laughable. They state "despite rapid [population) growth" carbon dioxide emissions have only increased 2%. The population of Portland has only increased by 15,000 people from the 2000 to 2010 census. That's less than a 1/4 of a percent increase in population! I guess it's that old argument, "It coulda been worse".
Spin Susan.

The fundamental belief of the Office of "Planning" and "Sustainability" is the cognitively dissonant "triple bottom line", that the relationship between environment and society is nothing more than...tradeoffs between economic and ecological cost. But really there's never a tradeoff--and you can guess which one *always* (Hayden Island) wins (South Waterfront).

Susan Anderson is no protector of the local and regional ecology--she's a spokesmodel.

"Except for that whole Hayden Island thing, and that South Waterfront thing, and that river Superfund site thing, and that Big Pipe thing, and that increasing tapping of groundwater to meet rising demand thing, that disappearing salmon thing, that increasing water pollution thing, that declining air quality thing, that high unemployment thing, that increasing gang violence thing, that running out of land so we grab farmland instead thing, that unaffordable housing thing, that rising poverty thing, that disappearing middle class thing..."

Ecohuman, I had to laugh outloud when I read this. Let me add the developers pressuring decisionmakers thing.

Such transparent hogwash; I am amazed how the legend of Transportation Secretary Neil Goldschmidt diverting highway funds to transit has endured. It is unfortunate that idealogues have made real discussion of the pros and cons of "smart growth" too difficult until preventable mistakes take their toll on the economy and environment.

The fundamental problem is that advocates of "smart growth" who ridicule all other forms of growth forget that they all share the same noun--and no matter how and in what parts of the yard you pile the dogs*it, eventually you run out of yard and start stepping in it.